Apparently something we've done lately has attracted some attention from game designers/publishers which might end up granting us access to even more cool stuff. I don't know if the extra attention is from Erik making sure we produce shows on a regular basis, our new review format, or the recent pre-release coverage of titles up on Kickstarter. Whatever the case I'm just happy be getting attention.

The amusing thing is that I can tell which publishers are familiar with On Board Games and which ones are just cruising the podcast circuit looking for extra word of mouth at budget prices. It doesn't really bother me when someone makes a cold-call, but I really don't want On Board Games covering the exact same thing that every other show covers.

That means if a publisher wants to run a contest through 10 different podcasts, we would probably charge them. If they just wanted to do a give away through us then we'd probably do it for free. Or at least the first one would be free, we'd eventually charge for our work.

Why do they contact On Board Games?The reason for most contacts are "Would we cover game X?". In most cases the answer is yes, even if the company in question regrets it after the fact. I don't promise a good review just because someone sends me a copy of a game. My time and shelf-space are probably more valuable than whatever you are sending me.

I have to advise that even though we love covering games, and we try to cover every game we receive, that doesn't always happen. We try doubly hard if it looks like we are getting something ahead of release, or if it looks like we are getting an exclusive. If a publisher/designer needs a game back or passed on once we've had a chance to examine it - just make sure to include a pre-paid mailing label and we will send it on once we are done with it.

But I guess I haven't explained how I know when someone unfamiliar with the show cold-calls me. One big tell is that they ask for numbers. Companies that understand new media know the value, and most of those don't ask for numbers unless we are asking for advertising dollars. In case you haven't noticed, we have never had a paid advertisement in an episode of On Board Games. Heck, we haven't even asked for donations since my PayPal account went tits-up.

Yes, we mention Second Rat Games as a sponsor, but Erik and I own that company and when I couldn't afford to pay for On Board Games anymore 2RG took up the slack so the show wouldn't end. In the final analysis On Board Games is costing us, both in hosting fees and product development time.

It has been several years since I've had three distribution numbers requests in the same week. I suspect most of these will go nowhere, there are board game related pod-casts with higher numbers than On Board Games, but some of them might end up with us receiving new games to review or even offers of sponsorship. If you know of a company that would benefit from us talking about their products, please have them check out the numbers below.

Six months in review

Here are our numbers for the last six months. This is the total number of downloads for each episode, so obviously older episodes will have had more downloads. Usually the first 30-45 days is a good indicator of where the numbers will end up, but that's not always the case.

Thanks for the Stitcher stats. I remember not too long ago when they didn't have magic numbers and the Nerdist podcast dropped their feed with them for that reason. Now it is probably the most detailed in the industry and they are back together again. Good times!

I think it would be great if you guys took paid ads, because I'm sure you wouldn't overdo it. D6G, in my opinion, over does it a bit, but on the other hand, I still listen to their shows even if I sometimes fast-forward through the ads (and some of the miniatures, RPG, and literature talk... you can condense a 4 hour episode down quite a bit if you only listen to the "good" parts... ).

If you guys could make a little money to cover the cost that you incur in bringing us entertaining episodes, then great. If the cost to me is 2 minutes of ads, then that seems pretty fair.

Also - that "Is That the End?" episode opening was mean. When I heard that Cody and John were going off the air, it didn't seem like a big deal and I just took it as a chance to get into a podcast where I could listen to back episodes at my leisure without feeling like I missing the new episodes that were coming out. Then I found out how loyal listeners of that podcast must have felt - I was sad.

I'll be honest and say that OBG might not be the #1 podcast that I most look forward to listening to, but it's definitely up there, and I don't want to miss an episode - even the one about Disney World.

Also - that "Is That the End?" episode opening was mean. When I heard that Cody and John were going off the air, it didn't seem like a big deal and I just took it as a chance to get into a podcast where I could listen to back episodes at my leisure without feeling like I missing the new episodes that were coming out. Then I found out how loyal listeners of that podcast must have felt - I was sad.

I'll take full blame for that, but when I titled the episode, I honestly wasn't thinking that it would be taken in that manner. I was thinking like you finished a game and thought "Is that it? Is that the end of the game."

Also - that "Is That the End?" episode opening was mean. When I heard that Cody and John were going off the air, it didn't seem like a big deal and I just took it as a chance to get into a podcast where I could listen to back episodes at my leisure without feeling like I missing the new episodes that were coming out. Then I found out how loyal listeners of that podcast must have felt - I was sad.

I'll take full blame for that, but when I titled the episode, I honestly wasn't thinking that it would be taken in that manner. I was thinking like you finished a game and thought "Is that it? Is that the end of the game."

Clearly I misjudged that one. Sorry.

I wasn't talking about just the title, but the opening segment where you guys danced around the issue... Anyway, don't take my post the wrong way. It was mean and then I laughed.